Sid_6.7:I'm an atheist, and I don't really have a problem with Islam. Overall, I think it's a really neat thing, but not for me. I do have a problem with anyone claiming I should live my life a certain way due to their religious beliefs. Or, rather, it would be more accurate to say that if someone takes steps to try and force me to follow their religious beliefs, then I have a problem.

Infernalist: doglover: What's the fancy word for people who like cilantro?

Douchebag?

Please, explain, how liking the taste of an herb makes someone a douchebag? I could say the same about people classifying others based upon their enjoyment of a single plant.

/potheads, for example

I got Some awesome tomatoes that I started in ceramic pots with potting soil. Kiss my ripe reds ones if you don't like it. Even better, slice one up for a BLT with salt, pepper, and mayo.

I am sorry, what was that you said about science being a passive kitten? I couldn't hear you over this atomic bomb that science has developed.

[www.comediva.com image 443x480]

False equivalence, their is nothing in science that commands humanity to act cruelly to one another. On the other hand religion often demands that we do.

Which is why science requires ethics. Otherwise, you get the Nazi experiments on Jewish and Gypsy prisoners. Actually, those experiments are the only reason we know things like the maximum altitude that the human body can endure.

There's a big difference between science and humane science.

Again your wrong, religion is not required for sound ethics, nor is it the solsource. People can be good on their own, and living in a society that rewards goodness and punishes cruelty helps that along. Theocratic societies often have laws that punish good acts, and reward evil acts, that happen to be against, or for, the religious doctrine of the land. And the reason otherwise good people go against their gut feelings and allow this is because, insert invisible sky man or the guy that claims to have a direct line to him here, says so.

Maybe most of you will grow up and get your heads out of your asses. Here's hoping.

Tommy Moo: These numbers are nothing like Christianity. The closest equivalent American Christianity has to Islam would be the Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church, which comprises a total of 30 people who have never actually acted in violence. It has been over a decade since a Christian has assassinated an abortion provider.

I am sorry, what was that you said about science being a passive kitten? I couldn't hear you over this atomic bomb that science has developed.

[www.comediva.com image 443x480]

False equivalence, their is nothing in science that commands humanity to act cruelly to one another. On the other hand religion often demands that we do.

Which is why science requires ethics. Otherwise, you get the Nazi experiments on Jewish and Gypsy prisoners. Actually, those experiments are the only reason we know things like the maximum altitude that the human body can endure.

There's a big difference between science and humane science.

Again your wrong, religion is not required for sound ethics, nor is it the solsource. People can be good on their own, and living in a society that rewards goodness and punishes cruelty helps that along. Theocratic societies often have laws that punish good acts, and reward evil acts, that happen to be against, or for, the religious doctrine of the land. And the reason otherwise good people go against their gut feelings and allow this is because, insert invisible sky man or the guy that claims to have a direct line to him here, says so.

I didn't say religion alone could guide us. I'm just saying that this stuff that Harris and Dawkins push, where science is the preferable moral source, isn't exactly true. In fact, it's been the exact opposite in some profound incidents.

Religion works in that it gives purpose to life outside of eating, sleeping, and farking.

Look at the two most religious and elaborate civilizations of the ancient world. The Egyptians and Greeks.

Ask yourself, what did these two polytheistic civilizations with a rich spiritual world give to civilization?

Mathematics. Astronomy. Logic. Farming. Dentistry. Sanitation. Preservation techniques. Architecture that stands to this day.dishonor your mother/father now at days... but how about building something better before tearing down what has worked.

There is no god. God does not exist. No I am not agnostic, I am saying for sure that there is no god because the people that claim that there is have provided no proof.

The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the claimant. The claimant is the people who say there IS a god.

No, the ball is still in your court. The piece of dirt you threw over to our side doesn`t fool anybody. The ball is still in your court to prove your god exists.

I do not have to prove anything. The lack of proof from the claimant is all the validation I need to be correct.

Your claim is false when looked at considering all current evidence. Therefore there is no god. This will remain the case until further evidence is turned up at which time we can look again at the facts.

/I am not agnostic.//I really am denying the existence of deities.///I am a gnostic athiest by default as I am not theist for sure and I am not agnostic leaving only one option.

dready zim:There is no god. God does not exist. No I am not agnostic, I am saying for sure that there is no god because the people that claim that there is have provided no proof.

The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the claimant. The claimant is the people who say there IS a god.

No, the ball is still in your court. The piece of dirt you threw over to our side doesn`t fool anybody. The ball is still in your court to prove your god exists.

I do not have to prove anything. The lack of proof from the claimant is all the validation I need to be correct.

Your claim is false when looked at considering all current evidence. Therefore there is no god. This will remain the case until further evidence is turned up at which time we can look again at the facts.

/I am not agnostic.//I really am denying the existence of deities.///I am a gnostic athiest by default as I am not theist for sure and I am not agnostic leaving only one option.

PunGent:sudo give me more cowbell: PunGent: sudo give me more cowbell: FTA: "If you are attempting to eradicate religion oneNew York Times bestseller at a time, like Harris and Dawkins are, maybe it makes sense to go after what you perceive as the "worst" belief system first, then the next-worst, and so on, until the only faith left in the world is a pacifist combo of Unitarianism and Jainism."

Now, I'm not sure there's a SOLUTION (short of mind control and violent eugenics) for the problem, but I think nobody has managed to quite refute his point, either.

Believers in what pray-tell?pro-tip: if you're gonna criticize something, spend a little time learning what the hell it is first.

Believers in any and all gods, including Unitarians. ( I have Unitarians in my family tree and circle of friends, btw)

Well then you obviously haven't spoken to them about what they believe. Some Unitarians believe in god, a lot are atheist, a lot more fall into the Spinoza's god territory.

It's Dawkins' point, not mine; have you read his work?

Yes, but it is you who is claiming that all Unitarians believe in a god of some kind, and if you're going to talk about a group of people and what they believe in, then it is usually helpful to actually know something about what they believe in -cause then you'd know what you're talking about, and that's always a good thing.

More importantly...can you refute it?

Refute it? well I can point to countless instances in history of stark-raving crazy ideologues with self-glorified crusades who felt that the most important thing to do was to attack the moderates within some ideological window in order to create a wedge with which to push their own group think onto the whole. Being more radical doesn't make you more right.

Here to throw my hat in with the Atheists, but I've got nothing new and snarky to say that hasn't already been said.

I would be interested in a study of various religions though, to determine how to get them to stop having such a negative social impact. Jews and Christians had a leadership that promoted horrific violence, for example, and now they're not as bad. Scientology is pretty terrible, and I can accept that a minority - but significant and vocal extremist minority with the implicit approval of a significant subset of the moderates - of Muslims are also horrible. There's dozens more examples.

Is it some sort of lifecyle-of-religion thing, where they go through phases and become less awful? Even if the catholic church was deliberately hiding their many, many kiddy diddlers, it's at least a bit better than large-scale wars and inquisitions. Do religions have to 'grow up' ?

Don't get me wrong, I still think their existence itself causes the retardation of the progress of humankind as a whole, but I think not enough effort has been spent on legitimately determining a solution to the problem. Religion is too built in to humans to just go away because it doesn't make sense - we need to figure out how to properly neuter it while we're waiting for it to fade in importance.

dready zim:There is no god. God does not exist. No I am not agnostic, I am saying for sure that there is no god because the people that claim that there is have provided no proof.

The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the claimant. The claimant is the people who say there IS a god.

No, the ball is still in your court. The piece of dirt you threw over to our side doesn`t fool anybody. The ball is still in your court to prove your god exists.

I do not have to prove anything. The lack of proof from the claimant is all the validation I need to be correct.

Your claim is false when looked at considering all current evidence. Therefore there is no god. This will remain the case until further evidence is turned up at which time we can look again at the facts.

Your father did not have to prove to you that there is a God.

Your grandfather did not have to prove to you that there is a God.Your great-great-great-grand-parents did not need to prove to you there is a God.

It's better to believe in a God and be wrong than to not believe and be damned!This is Pascal's Argument: Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in God or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss.

Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you sir, as you are asking others to possibly damn their eternal soul.

Marine1:Inflatable Rhetoric: NostroZ: vactech: NostroZ: That IS the question of the article and to ALL ATHEISTS... if you tear something down, what are you building in its place?

As an atheist?

Would I say we go back to pre-Jesus times where we all would crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?

Yes I would, Nostro.

You seem to be under the God-Delusion that Christ is the ONLY religion people followed.

There was the Code of Hammurabi before the ten commandments.

This all or nothing argument of Atheists is lazy... Remember, religion/belief has ALWAYS been with the human species and in times when it was forcefully eradicated extraordinary violence followed (see Soviet/Chinese communism at its peak).

Therefore, the burden of proof is upon the Atheists to show that no religion is better than the slightest.

/All I see Atheists doing is destroying something that works.//I don't see them creating anything better in the place of the burned ruins their ideas spread.///Also, to hide behind "Harris/Dawkins are not Atheist leaders and there is no such thing", ignores reality very much... the reality that an uncertain Atheist is an agnostic and leaders at the top shape a very certain idea of Atheism.

Religion "works?" In what way?

It does a reasonably good job at getting certain groups to act a certain way.

That's at least difficult to measure.And some of these groups act in a way which is problematic, to say the least.And then, there's nothing for comparison, except other religions.

NostroZ:vactech: NostroZ: vactech: NostroZ: That IS the question of the article and to ALL ATHEISTS... if you tear something down, what are you building in its place?

As an atheist?

Would I say we go back to pre-Jesus times where we all would crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?

Yes I would, Nostro.

You seem to be under the God-Delusion that Christ is the ONLY religion people followed.

There was the Code of Hammurabi before the ten commandments.

Shiat! Code of Hammurabable...that's what I meant to say. My bad!

And prior to that there was the Code of Ur-Nammu.

Look man, religion exploded in Egypt around 4100 years ago and so did human civilization. Writing. Farming. Mathematics. Dentistry. Elaborate burial ritual, recreational games like bowling, hell BEER WAS INVENTED in Egypt around that time!

Now here you come 4100 years later and pretend that without a religious code civilization would flourish and here I am telling you, NO!Religion is the basis of modern civilization.

I'd argue that the evolution from Animism->Polytheism->Monotheism has allowed us to become the great specie we are today.

Look man, I'm telling you we are on the same page. I just think we are at odds about our historical facts.

See, before the Code of Hummus, it was a brain eating, Atheist utopia. Then, through the power of religion humans developed farming, a subsitute for brain protein. Everything was fine until 4000 years later when Stalin came and reignited the flames of Atheism. Brain eating was up 30%. Fortunately , in the mid 80's, Rocky Balboa was challenged to a boxing fight with Stalin's prize fighter Ivan Drago to settle the matter. Things looked bleak, but what is not widely known is that Rocky had a secret White House meeting with Ronald Reagen who gave Rocky the stratagy needed to win. And peace was restored.

Inflatable Rhetoric:Marine1: Inflatable Rhetoric: NostroZ: vactech: NostroZ: That IS the question of the article and to ALL ATHEISTS... if you tear something down, what are you building in its place?

As an atheist?

Would I say we go back to pre-Jesus times where we all would crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?

Yes I would, Nostro.

You seem to be under the God-Delusion that Christ is the ONLY religion people followed.

There was the Code of Hammurabi before the ten commandments.

This all or nothing argument of Atheists is lazy... Remember, religion/belief has ALWAYS been with the human species and in times when it was forcefully eradicated extraordinary violence followed (see Soviet/Chinese communism at its peak).

Therefore, the burden of proof is upon the Atheists to show that no religion is better than the slightest.

/All I see Atheists doing is destroying something that works.//I don't see them creating anything better in the place of the burned ruins their ideas spread.///Also, to hide behind "Harris/Dawkins are not Atheist leaders and there is no such thing", ignores reality very much... the reality that an uncertain Atheist is an agnostic and leaders at the top shape a very certain idea of Atheism.

Religion "works?" In what way?

It does a reasonably good job at getting certain groups to act a certain way.

That's at least difficult to measure.And some of these groups act in a way which is problematic, to say the least.And then, there's nothing for comparison, except other religions.

I'm not saying the outcome is always desirable... but it does get people to do things. I mean, that's all you hear from anti-theists.

Religion works in that it gives purpose to life outside of eating, sleeping, and farking.

Look at the two most religious and elaborate civilizations of the ancient world. The Egyptians and Greeks.

Ask yourself, what did these two polytheistic civilizations with a rich spiritual world give to civilization?

Mathematics. Astronomy. Logic. Farming. Dentistry. Sanitation. Preservation techniques. Architecture that stands to this day.dishonor your mother/father now at days... but how about building something better before tearing down what has worked.

I fail to see how religion contributed, or contributes, to Math, Astronomy, etc. I do recall Giordano Bruno being burned alive by religious leaders for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun.

oh geez, you with your stupid straw man again. You really are lame with these stupid and false attacks.You aren't even funny anymore.

check yourself before you wreck yourself.

tenpoundsofcheese: they are really the most intolerant peopleso no surprise

I was referring to the atheists.(cman's comment - then the thread got hijacked by the cilantro comments)

ffs it was a baseketball reference holy shiat some of you are sensitive

I love a good game of hoops with friends on a Saturday morning, but just because I use a body wash with Shea Butter and shaving cream with Menthol doesn't give you grounds to bust my chops over it, meanie!

Inflatable Rhetoric:It does a reasonably good job at getting certain groups to act a certain way.

That's at least difficult to measure.And some of these groups act in a way which is problematic, to say the least.And then, there's nothing for comparison, except other religions.

Hey man, did you read above in your own quote what I wrote about comparisons?The soviet union did not have a religion. In fact, it was outlawed by the communist party.The Soviets killed millions of their own (under Stalin).The same thing occurred under Mao in China with the Great Leap forward. Millions of Chinese starved to death, as with Stalin.

For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

quietwalker:I would be interested in a study of various religions though, to determine how to get them to stop having such a negative social impact. Jews and Christians had a leadership that promoted horrific violence, for example, and now they're not as bad. Scientology is pretty terrible, and I can accept that a minority - but significant and vocal extremist minority with the implicit approval of a significant subset of the moderates - of Muslims are also horrible. There's dozens more examples.

Well, when people say things like "Christianity today is better off than Islam", they're really only talking about Christianity in North America and Europe (and to some extent South America). Christianity in Africa (places like Uganda etc.) is pretty much on par with any stereotypically bad picture of Islam in the Middle East.

NostroZ:orbister: FTFA: What I'm wondering, though, is what atheism puts in place of that morality and framework that book of rules to which religions provide demand unquestioning obedience.

Principles.

Next question?

That IS the question of the article and to ALL ATHEISTS... if you tear something down, what are you building in its place?

This article clearly shows that HATRED is what is being bred by the Atheist leaders like Dawkins & Harris.

Since Atheists go out of their way to stick it to believers about how RELIGION is the root of evil/hate, then how does the above Jibe? What good do Atheists create? We already know what they destroy... but this is a VERY REAL QUESTION.

You're starting from a faulty premise, and everything that is developed from that premise is likewise faulty.

Religion works in that it gives purpose to life outside of eating, sleeping, and farking.

Look at the two most religious and elaborate civilizations of the ancient world. The Egyptians and Greeks.

Ask yourself, what did these two polytheistic civilizations with a rich spiritual world give to civilization?

Mathematics. Astronomy. Logic. Farming. Dentistry. Sanitation. Preservation techniques. Architecture that stands to this day.dishonor your mother/father now at days... but how about building something better before tearing down what has worked.

I fail to see how religion contributed, or contributes, to Math, Astronomy, etc. I do recall Giordano Bruno being burned alive by religious leaders for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun.

The societies that contributed to those things were pretty damned religious. Furthermore, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Church more or less kept the Classical knowledge alive during the Dark Ages.

NostroZ:Inflatable Rhetoric: It does a reasonably good job at getting certain groups to act a certain way.

That's at least difficult to measure.And some of these groups act in a way which is problematic, to say the least.And then, there's nothing for comparison, except other religions.

Hey man, did you read above in your own quote what I wrote about comparisons?The soviet union did not have a religion. In fact, it was outlawed by the communist party.The Soviets killed millions of their own (under Stalin).The same thing occurred under Mao in China with the Great Leap forward. Millions of Chinese starved to death, as with Stalin.

For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

IlGreven:jso2897: IlGreven: Gunther: OK, I've just spent the last 20 minutes reading all of the articles and such he links to, and as far as I can tell, his problem isn't that all atheists are Islamophobes, it's that one atheist (Sam Harris) has said some inflammatory stuff about Islam that was taken out of context by someone else to make it sound like he was bigoted.

Big. Farking. Deal. Even if he was a bigot, why the hell would one bigoted atheist somehow mean the whole movement had a problem with Islam? Is Sam Harris the atheist pope now?

...this is the fourth article in three weeks that I've seen that rails against the "Islamophobia" of the Big Three of "New" Atheism: Sam Harris (and they only cite him from the book he wrote a decade ago), Richard Dawkins (and they only cite him in the form of out-of-context tweets and books he wrote a decade ago), and Christopher Hitchens (who's been dead for a year and a half).

There is a real threat to Atheism, but it's not any of these three: It's this dumbass Atheism+ movement that requires the shrill type of misandrist feminism that people like Adria Richards thrive off of, and uses tactics most atheists left the church to get away from to ensure "purity". Just say no to Pope PZ Myers and High Priestess Rebecca Watson. I'd rather be lumped in with "Islamophobes" like Dawkins and Harris.

A "real threat" to whose atheism? Not mine. Angry, judgmental "atheists" are about as much a threat to my atheism as gay marriage is to my marriage.

I didn't mean atheists, I meant atheism. The biggest target for atheism should be people who would become atheists "but for" something that atheists do that offends them (and like it or not, fence-sitters in religion see atheists as a group, not as individuals). I think the crap spouted by Atheism+ does more to drive potential "converts" away from doing so than anything Sam Harris does.

...and now that I think about it, A+ has, in fact, been big on "locking out" those atheists who don't agree ...

It's not a friggin' club I belong to, and I'm not interested in expanding the "membership". There is no actual "thing" called "atheism", in my world. It's just my personal worldview- nothing more, nothing less.I didn't "decide" to "become" and atheist, any more than I "decided" to become heterosexual.The whole concept (of someone "becoming" an atheist) is alien to me.

Uncle Tractor:HindiDiscoMonster: Seriously, I agree.... I just love it when Jesus said "verily I say unto thee, if thy neighbor sucks, thou shalt kill him" or when he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone... that's right biatches that is me..." then whacked that ho... or better, when he said "Turn the other cheek, cause i'm gonna pimp slap that one too!" Classic... oh wait, I mean the opposite of that,

How about when Jesus said that apostates were to be burned on the fire? Does that count?

[i560.photobucket.com image 512x668]

Why do you think they called it the "Dark Ages". 50 million were killed by Jesus lovers.

Religion works in that it gives purpose to life outside of eating, sleeping, and farking.

Look at the two most religious and elaborate civilizations of the ancient world. The Egyptians and Greeks.

Ask yourself, what did these two polytheistic civilizations with a rich spiritual world give to civilization?

Mathematics. Astronomy. Logic. Farming. Dentistry. Sanitation. Preservation techniques. Architecture that stands to this day.dishonor your mother/father now at days... but how about building something better before tearing down what has worked.

I fail to see how religion contributed, or contributes, to Math, Astronomy, etc. I do recall Giordano Bruno being burned alive by religious leaders for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun.

My friend. People in power do not like ANYONE undermining their authority. This has nothing to do with religion. It's human greed.

Religion allowed for a hierarchical society that is necessary to achieve great things (like the Pyramids) and farming. With the Pharaoh being a representative for God, a whole social construct that we use today in business developed. With farming mathematics was needed to divide the fields following the Nile's annual flooding. With advanced mathematics the Pharaoh's court was able to predict eclipses and other astral anomalies. With more leisure time as a result of specialization and farming, the Egyptians developed games, like bowling (really, look it up).

The same arc of development can be seen for the Greeks after the develop their mythology.

There will always be bad apples, in religion or not. But to ascribe all evil to religion ignores the extraordinary good that it does for civilization.

Religion works in that it gives purpose to life outside of eating, sleeping, and farking.

Look at the two most religious and elaborate civilizations of the ancient world. The Egyptians and Greeks.

Ask yourself, what did these two polytheistic civilizations with a rich spiritual world give to civilization?

Mathematics. Astronomy. Logic. Farming. Dentistry. Sanitation. Preservation techniques. Architecture that stands to this day.dishonor your mother/father now at days... but how about building something better before tearing down what has worked.

I fail to see how religion contributed, or contributes, to Math, Astronomy, etc. I do recall Giordano Bruno being burned alive by religious leaders for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun.

miss diminutive:staplermofo: I love hatred threads. If there was a clothing line by that name I would wear only their stuff.

Isn't their clothing line a sheet with two holes cut in it?

It could also be all black from head to toe. A black beret and some aesthetically or ironically placed bling. Or a pair of rubber boots, bib overalls held up by one strap, a mossy oak hat, and a sprig of wheat clenched between their teeth.

Inflatable Rhetoric:For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Really? You haven't heard about the Inquisition?

That was against the Jews and Muslims... nothing to see here.

Business as usual in Europe... move along citizen.

/In Capitalism this phenomenon was called McCarthyism... a witch-hunt by the fanatical against their perceived moral enemies.//Lets not pretend that religion has anything to do with people in power oppressing a minority group they deem dangerous.///Look up Eugene V. Debs and that he was sentenced to prison for saying that he supported the anti-war movement in WW2.

Marine1:ciberido: RobSeace: ciberido: Perhaps someone who's actually been to an atheist convention would care to comment on how many people there were nonwhite or female?

We have conventions now??

The national convention in the USA was in March and the global convention is in Australia in five days. Also, American Atheists was founded in 1963 and has a board of directors.

So it's like church, but with none of the redemption or awesome food afterwards and all of the effort in getting somewhere when you just want to sleep.

I thought they were supposed to be smarter and more logic-driven than us, man. Reading that was like having a discussion with my Jewish girlfriend's dad about how he buys lottery tickets.

I think you'll find that a very, very tiny minority of all atheists attend these conventions... I've never even heard of them before now, and I've been an atheist all my life (going on 42 years now)! And, now having heard of them, I certainly have no desire at all to ever attend one... To me it would be like attending a convention of other people who also don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot or Santa Claus... Great and all, but that's not really enough of a defining characteristic to justify getting together and socializing, in my book... For all I know, they may all be assholes who like stuff I hate and vice versa; shared lack of belief in a deity says nothing else about their personalities really... At least with something like a Star Trek convention, you know you have a shared love of sci-fi in common, and something to at least talk about... But, how do you talk about a lack of belief in a deity? "So, I hear you don't believe in gods either? Cool!" Not a very long conversation, really...

I am sorry, what was that you said about science being a passive kitten? I couldn't hear you over this atomic bomb that science has developed.

[www.comediva.com image 443x480]

False equivalence, their is nothing in science that commands humanity to act cruelly to one another. On the other hand religion often demands that we do.

Which is why science requires ethics. Otherwise, you get the Nazi experiments on Jewish and Gypsy prisoners. Actually, those experiments are the only reason we know things like the maximum altitude that the human body can endure.

There's a big difference between science and humane science.

Again your wrong, religion is not required for sound ethics, nor is it the solsource. People can be good on their own, and living in a society that rewards goodness and punishes cruelty helps that along. Theocratic societies often have laws that punish good acts, and reward evil acts, that happen to be against, or for, the religious doctrine of the land. And the reason otherwise good people go against their gut feelings and allow this is because, insert invisible sky man or the guy that claims to have a direct line to him here, says so.

I didn't say religion alone could guide us. I'm just saying that this stuff that Harris and Dawkins push, where science is the preferable moral source, isn't exactly true. In fact, it's been the exact opposite in some profound incidents.

And your earlier example of forced human experimentation by the Nazi's is proof of this? Hardly, the Nazi hate of Jews and other Non-Christian, or unpopular Christian denominations, such a Jehova Witnesses, was fueled by old Lutheran and Catholic hate of those groups. It was that bigotry that lead to the view of certain groups as subhuman. People that claim to be scientist, but inject their hate, bigotry, or own self interests into the scientific process in order to justify their beliefs are not scientist, they are people in search of an excuse for their actions.

Religion works in that it gives purpose to life outside of eating, sleeping, and farking.

Look at the two most religious and elaborate civilizations of the ancient world. The Egyptians and Greeks.

Ask yourself, what did these two polytheistic civilizations with a rich spiritual world give to civilization?

Mathematics. Astronomy. Logic. Farming. Dentistry. Sanitation. Preservation techniques. Architecture that stands to this day.dishonor your mother/father now at days... but how about building something better before tearing down what has worked.

Before you claim any of these (many of which predate Egypt and Greece) for the Theists, you are going to have to provide clear and convicing evidence that the one reason any of these things were 'invented" was religion.

p.s. The earliest scientifically confirmed barley beer production was in Iran about 5,500 years ago. The Chinese were producing alcoholic beverages on a small scale as far back as 9,000 years ago.

NostroZ:dready zim: There is no god. God does not exist. No I am not agnostic, I am saying for sure that there is no god because the people that claim that there is have provided no proof.

The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the claimant. The claimant is the people who say there IS a god.

No, the ball is still in your court. The piece of dirt you threw over to our side doesn`t fool anybody. The ball is still in your court to prove your god exists.

I do not have to prove anything. The lack of proof from the claimant is all the validation I need to be correct.

Your claim is false when looked at considering all current evidence. Therefore there is no god. This will remain the case until further evidence is turned up at which time we can look again at the facts. Your father did not have to prove to you that there is a God.

Your grandfather did not have to prove to you that there is a God.Your great-great-great-grand-parents did not need to prove to you there is a God.

It's better to believe in a God and be wrong than to not believe and be damned!This is Pascal's Argument: Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in God or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss.

Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you sir, as you are asking others to possibly damn their eternal soul.

HindiDiscoMonster:IlGreven: bullsballs: Thanks to atheism, Sadism and living for the moment is AOK!There is no God, and no need to worry about retribution after you die, as there is no afterlife, no Heaven or hell.Everything is of man, so you can make your own rules to live and die by.

Thanks to Christianity, you can be a sadistic evil bastard on Earth, but all you have to do is convert on your deathbed and all your sins will be forgiven!

/See, I can make excuses for "perceived" horrible behavior, too!//Lower percentage of atheists in prison than in the free population.///Higher percentage of Christians in prison than in the free population.

nope. You have to do the following: 1> Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior (truly)2> Repent (which is not an apology but a turning away from sin)3> Confess your sins4> Ask forgiveness from God

Some denominations also believe that you must also be baptized which is why I did not include it in the primary list as all denominations must agree on those 4 if they are Christian.

So you try to refute the statement by saying "nope" and then by listing the steps in conversion? Were you perhaps unaware of the meaning of the word conversion as it was used in his statement?

Besides which, your steps do nothing to refute the point of his statement. A serial rapist murderer could follow your steps (earnestly, "with all his heart", since that seems to be some important measurement) and still be forgiven of all his crimes (or sins as some call them) and earn an eternal paradise. While his victim, who for the sake of argument never accepted Jesus (or followed any of your steps), burns in eternal agony for unbelief.

So the murder-rapist not only ultimately gets away with his crimes, but is actively forgiven for all of them and rewarded with eternal bliss, while his victim (whose last moments were of violation, humiliation, pain, and terror) remains unforgiven, and dies only to be punished with eternal violation, humiliation, pain, and terror.

How very just and fair of your god.

But you might argue, "They had a chance for the same forgiveness!" Sure. Sure they did. Right up until they were raped and murdered by your happy new cherub.

Also, as an aside, so who's correct? The denominations that think water baptism is necessary or the ones who don't? What about the multitudes of other denominations that think steps are added or removed from your list? Are they right? What about other religions, are they right?

And yet this huge "yuh huh" "nuh uh" dichotomy of either or is the new black. : ) Nobody can wax profound better than [nominal group A] and [nominal group A is full of sh*t]. The either or isn't at all irrelevant. What's irrelevant, apparently, is what we do or do not do about the truth if we do find out without a doubt. Either way, something within our makeup makes us participants in something we feel but don't quite understand and we know it's amazingly important.